https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33395 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. could not be denied merely because the goods transport agencies furnished the non-availment declaration on their letterheads instead of on the consignment notes. The notification required only substantive compliance with the conditions that the GTA had not taken Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods and had not availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T.; it did not prescribe an exclusive proof format. The Board's circular treated a declaration on the consignment note as sufficient, not mandatory. Since the declarations were available and produced during audit, the lapse was only procedural and the assessee was entitled to the abatement. en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33395 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. could not be denied merely because the goods transport agencies furnished the non-availment declaration on their letterheads instead of on the consignment notes. The notification required only substantive compliance with the conditions that the GTA had not taken Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods and had not availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T.; it did not prescribe an exclusive proof format. The Board's circular treated a declaration on the consignment note as sufficient, not mandatory. Since the declarations were available and produced during audit, the lapse was only procedural and the assessee was entitled to the abatement. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33395